Russell Brand convicted of rape and three sexual assaults in London

Russell Brand, 51, was convicted of rape and three sexual assaults on Thursday, November 5, 2026 at the Southwark Crown Court in London. After four weeks of trial, the jury also acquitted him of two other charges of rape and attempted indecent assault. The BBC, ABC and Tagesschau agree on these verdicts. The British actor and humorist was detained before his sentence, scheduled for Monday, 9 November. [S3] [S11] [S14] [S22]

Four convictions, three acquittals

The trial involved the charges of six women for crimes between 1999 and 2009. The offences were committed against four women, dating back to 2004-2009, according to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the prosecution service. According to the BBC, the deliberations lasted eight and a half hours. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between all the charges examined and the facts for which guilt was established. [S11] [S21]

The rape involved an admirer met after a show at Hammersmith Apollo in 2009. According to her testimony reported by ABC, she went to Brand's home a few days later for a consented sexual relationship. He then imposed another act on her, without her consent, and did not stop when she asked her. [S11] [S14]

The three sexual assaults involved a MTV employee at a Soho bar in 2004, a Choice FM employee at Capital Radio in 2004 or 2005, and a Channel 4 employee in 2009, during a massage imposed. For the bar episode, the jury detained the sexual assault, but acquitted Brand of the rape also alleged. The other acquittals concerned an alleged rape in 1999 in Bournemouth and an attempted indecent assault in 2001. [S11]

A discrepancy appears in WELT's report, which mentions four dismissed charges. The BBC, ABC and Tagesschau report three acquittals: two rape counts and one attempted indecent assault. Their accounts agree on the four convictions, also confirmed by the prosecution and the police. [S3] [S5] [S11] [S14] [S21] [S22]

Consent at the centre of the trial

Brand denied all the offences. He admitted that he was obsessed with sex in his youth, but argued that he had never imposed unconscionable sexual activity. In particular, his lawyers invoked the delay between the alleged facts and the reports to the police to challenge the credibility of the charges. The prosecution described him, conversely, as a man exploiting his reputation to satisfy his desires. The qualifiers of "sexual predator" and "manipulator" belong to the arguments of the prosecution, not to the formulation of verdicts. [S3] [S14] [S21]

The concrete issue was the freedom of every woman to accept or refuse a sexual act, rather than a general judgment on the way of life of the accused. Prior to the proceedings, Judge Joel Bennathan had presented consent as the central issue. The testimony relating to the rape involved the transition from a relationship initially consented to an act imposed despite a request for arrest. [S14]

Protecting witnesses without removing contradiction

The Metropolitan Police reported that it opened its investigation after the revelations of Channel 4, the Times and the Sunday Times in September 2023. The women who contacted her didn't know each other. The investigators heard more than 100 witnesses, collected more than 400 statements and examined over 1,400 documents to reconstruct the circumstances of the charges. [S22]

The seniority of the facts limited the means available: the police reported the absence of video surveillance images and forensic evidence, as well as digital searches limited by the time elapsed. The Public Prosecutor's Office explained that it had reconciled women's stories and testimonies to form its case file. These details describe the methodology presented by the investigating and prosecuting authorities. [S21] [S22]

According to ABC, the six complainants testified behind a screen and answered the defence questions. The jury also heard their police hearings. They enjoy anonymity for life. This protection of their identity did not therefore remove the contradictory examination of their statements; Brand himself testified in his defence. [S14]

A penalty still to be fixed, a separate investigation

The judge announced a significant sentence of imprisonment, but did not specify the duration. The defense requested that Brand remain free on bail during the weekend to explain the situation to his children. While acknowledging the difficulties for them, the judge refused, citing the considerable resources of the actor and the risk that he would not appear at the sentencing hearing. [S11]

Two other rape charges are investigated separately. According to ABC, Brand has already been questioned and files have been transmitted to the SPC, without charge for these facts at this stage. These allegations are not covered by the 5 November verdict: their outcome remains open and do not constitute further established guilt. [S11] [S14]